@T_aquaticus you are pretty entertaining. I’m familiar with your type of perspective.
Your point of view is not common among scientists. In our work we are constantly impressed by the smallness of scientific knowledge in comparison with what is to be discovered. We care deeply about ethics, even though we know that science cannot establish them. We are concerned about injustice, even though science is blind to it. We are constantly facing questions with objective answers that we are unable to address with our current and foreseeable limitations.
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? What is your experience doing scientific work? It seems like most of your understanding of science is hearsay, based on what you have read from some of the mainstream pontificators. Can you explain a little bit more about why you care about this topic and how you think science works? What are your influences?
It sounds like you like the idea of science, without having much experience with it. If I am wrong though, please show me how.
You aren’t impressed by what we have discovered in the last 100 years?
Also, I never said that I am not concerned about morality, ethics, or injustice. What I did say is that these are subjective. Just because it is subjective does not mean that I don’t care about those things.[quote=“Swamidass, post:205, topic:35961”]
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? What is your experience doing scientific work? It seems like most of your understanding of science is hearsay, based on what you have read from some of the mainstream pontificators. Can you explain a little bit more about why you care about this topic and how you think science works? What are your influences?
[/quote]
I have worked in biomedical research and am an author on 8 primary papers, if memory serves. I have attended many of the top conferences in the field of host/pathogen interactions, talked and had dinner with many of the top researchers in the field, have worked with many scientists and infectious disease docs, and have trained many a post-doc and undergrad. My expertise lies in molecular biology including DNA cloning, protein chemistry, and gene regulation.
I would say that I care about this topic (i.e. intersection of science and faith) because I care about science. At least in the US, there is a political movement that seeks to undermine scientific progress in the name of theological purity, and I think that is a bad thing. I come from a devout family and was raised in the church, but have no animosity towards Christianity. During my youth I was first introduced to YEC in all its glory, and after a little digging on my own I realized that I was being lied to. However, I never saw YEC as a reason to reject Christianity. I became an atheist for other reasons.
Since I have spent ample time in both camps I have always been curious, fascinated, and intrigued about the creo v. evo debate. This was furthered by discussions I had in college with my biology professors who were predominately Methodists. They were also interested in the intersection of faith and science, and that interest stuck with me.
So you are a bit wrong. I am a scientist, I know how science works, I have 20 years of experience in the sciences, and have worked along other scientists for nearly my entire adult life. My side interests include theoretical physics which led me to Steven Weinberg’s books, and much of what he wrote paralleled my own views and experiences, hence the quotes found in this thread.
Please don’t take offense at my questions. I’m familiar with your line of reasoning but do not find it commonly among the biologists that I know. I believe you, but (in my experience) it is somewhat atypical to come across someone like you that has experience in science.
Yes, I am a science professor at a leading university. I run a research group and have been working in this area for a couple decades now. I’m pretty easy to find online: http://swami.wustl.edu/ and http://peacefulscience.org/.
Of course I am. I love science, and this is where I found my home.
You have a lot in common with us here. Most of us oppose that political effort to control science, and as Christians we may be some of your most important allies.
Speaking for myself, I think our disagreement is not about science itself. We probably agree on most everything here. Rather, I think we disagree on how to think of things outside of science. This is probably because you are a certain type of atheist, and I am a certain type Christian. As a Christian and a scientist, it seems I am more open to the existence of important and object truth that is beyond our current understanding. Some of this truth is objective but not even accessible in principle by science.
Science, even when it is correct, is just never a complete account of the world. From this uncontroversial (for most) starting point, I see value in wondering about things beyond our knowledge. Not because we know the details are true, but because imagination both (as a Christian) the flourishing of the human soul and (as a scientist) the way science progresses. One of the best atheist thinkers on this is Alan Lightman. Have you read much of his work? Einstein’s Dreams is great.
I completely agree with that.[quote=“Swamidass, post:211, topic:35961”]
As a Christian and a scientist, it seems I am more open to the existence of important and object truth that is beyond our current understanding. Some of this truth is objective but not even accessible in principle by science.
[/quote]
That is probably where we disagree. Claiming something is objective without demonstrating it to be objective is indistinguishable from subjective. I have no doubt you believe that there are objective truths that scientific investigation can never uncover, but how is that distinguishable from something that doesn’t exist? In your own line of work you would never claim that there is an objective link between a specific gene and a specific disease, but also claim that such a link can never be detected by scientific means.
But like many things in life, there is no reason why we have to agree.
Sorry – I didn’t realize I had left a loose end up there somewhere. Looking back briefly from here (not on my own computer at home at the moment …) the only question I found quickly that maybe I didn’t answer was your: “How can you know they are true if you can’t test them against facts?” (If I guessed wrong on this, let me know … and please repeat the actual question you have in mind so I’ll know what you’re asking!)
Hoping that I guessed correctly here …
My answer: For many things probably you can’t know. At least not with the narrow empirical testing within which you want to restrict all evaluation. The point I’m trying to help you see is that just because something is not demonstrable within your own desired framework does not mean that it is not true. It just means we probably won’t be able to demonstrate its truth to your satisfaction! Asking then how it can be true is like thinking that something cannot exist if it is not in your field of view. That’s all I have time for now … gotta run again.
You state a number of factually correct matters and then? I point out that much of what scientists discuss use terms that are, and must be, examined philosophically (as a means to understand). Making vague generalities does not advance your case, nor does you outlook on philosophical contemplations make sense.
Your second sentence defeats your first sentence. You make vague generalities about philosophies without really explaining them.
From what I can see, science uses a very simple set of axioms that no one really argues over. As Weinberg puts it:
“Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”–Steven Weinberg, “Dreams of a Final Theory”
The axiom of “the stuff around is real” is not something that required scientists to learn philosophy. As said before, philosophers really haven’t made much of a contribution to science in quite a while.
Perhaps the best response I can make is to ask who made you a spokesperson for the scientists of this world, and what qualifies you to evaluate philosophy and its practitioners .
But seriously, just what contributions have (let us say to make this entertaining discussion) biologists made to the field of mathematics, or chemistry? By this, I mean how many practitioners in one field are expected (and indeed can) make contributions to other fields?
I do not have to explain philosophy to you - if you need that, I am sure a qualified philosopher can help you. I have simply pointed out my experience as a scientist with regard to my reading of some philosophical works.
The multiverse may be an objectively true fact, but it is a purely mathematical construct with no conceivable way to empirically verify it by observation. How is that distinguishable from something that doesn’t exist?
By your criteria, an objective truth that scientific investigation cannot uncover is indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist. This says more about the limitations of our science than about the realities of our physical universe. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that atoms, for instance, did not exist until they were discovered.
1,000 years ago we had no conceivable way to empirically observe galaxies that were 10 billion light years away. Now we can. This is simply a matter of not having the technology right now. I don’t see why we couldn’t build the technology in the future to test for multiple universes, or even produce new universes of our own at some point in the future.
What others are saying is that no technology that can ever be built can detect what they are talking about (if I am understanding them correctly). That is a different beast entirely.
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that until we uncovered evidence for atoms we had no reason to conclude that they did exist. If someone had said 500 years ago that there were atoms, but he had no evidence to support the claim, then people would be right to tentatively not accept his claim as true. As an analogy, people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Same concept.
I am talking about my own conclusions. If I am wrong, then please show me observations that contradict my conclusions.
Why are people so upset that philosophers have not made any significant contributions to science?[quote=“GJDS, post:62, topic:36189”]
I do not have to explain philosophy to you - if you need that, I am sure a qualified philosopher can help you. I have simply pointed out my experience as a scientist with regard to my reading of some philosophical works.
[/quote]
If you can’t show me the philosophers that are making these supposed contributions, then I can only conclude that even you can’t point to examples of philosophers making contributions to science.
Yes, which is why I said your statement has more to do with the limitations of our science than with what actually may or may not be truly said to exist. Expressing confidence that someday science will advance far enough to solve all known mysteries – including the possibility of multiverses – is a faith stance. All of us have them, whether we recognize them or not.
First, I never said that we definitely will develop technology to detect multiverses. Personally, I have no position on the existence or nonexistence of multiverses. I also take the position that there is no way that we can currently know if the universe we live in is the only universe in existence.
I also don’t see why it is a problem that our knowledge is limited to what we can demonstrate to exist. If something becomes knowledge by merely uttering the words, “I believe it is true”, then knowledge seizes to mean anything.
Because it eliminates entire categories of knowledge. Be that as it may, I’m sorry that I opened a can of worms that I don’t have time to debate. I’ll leave it to you to wrap a bow around it, if you want.
You should never feel obligated to respond to any posts, and your contributions are appreciated.
When you say that it eliminates entire categories of knowledge it only begs the question of what those categories are. That’s why I keep asking questions, to find out what this knowledge is, how it is acquired, and why people think it is true.
Fairly easily for a good many things as it turns out … and that is true for you too by the way. You believe that scientifically empirical evidence is the only way to have any confidence in any knowledge (or something very similar to that --tweak the words as you will). That “fact” is not itself a scientific fact, nor is it demonstrably true in any scientific or empirical sense since it is itself about the very empiricism that is in question. Yet here you are here claiming to believe it --not a bad thing, but a “mere” belief nonetheless. I believe I should love my family, friends, neighbors, etc. I can’t show you any scientific evidence why this should be true whatsoever. But I believe it to be true nonetheless (as I suspect you do too). We could go on. These aren’t just trivial beliefs. If we were to stop believing them, chaos would ensue; some would say it already has begun. If it continues, science will not be a winner --maybe not even a survivor in any such trajectory. That is why I think sites like this are so urgently needed. We need to reveal the lie for what it is that attempts to hijack science to take it down some ideological road toward Scientism.
On a related matter – you seemed disturbed above (in a response to someone else) that anyone could refer to facts as opinions. Since that is probably me, I’ll respond. I don’t think the world is a black and white world of “facts” and “falsehoods”. Okay --to nuance that, Yes; if we had a God’s eye perspective then every well crafted proposition could be made to fit cleanly into one category or the other. I accept that (yet another non-demonstrated conjecture that I and probably you accept on belief alone …). But what I’m claiming is that from our human perspective we only have degrees of certainty or doubt. For the sake of casual communication I’m willing to call as “fact” things that most of us are 99% certain of. Along that continuum down toward the low-confidence end things drift gradually into that nebulous realm of opinion (which you seem to effectively treat synonymous with “falsehood”). There is no clean division line here --even on the certain end there will always be at least a little of it that is opinion. You can’t even prove to me in any empirical sense that we both exist (yet another of the boat load of propositions you quite readily accept even though science is helpless to demonstrate it). So it goes without saying you won’t be demonstrating much harder things like the existence or non-existence of God.
.